On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:55, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of
simultaneity. This can be tested experimentally.
The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics
On 04 Feb 2014, at 01:19, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics
both imply the existence of a
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
You might read the book by Pale Yourgrau on "Einstein and Gödel".
Einstein never believed in time, and definietly stop to believe in its
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime
sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond
that it is an implication of re
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime
sit at the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond
that it is an implication of relativity, have there been or are
t
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:12, David Nyman wrote:
On 2 February 2014 18:53, LizR wrote:
I will come back on this when I have time
Thanks.
but - to continue my suggestions re SF stories - "Flux" by Michael
Moorcock addresses the "momentary frog question" rather nicely.
Philosophically, at lea
On 03 Feb 2014, at 22:33, Kim Jones wrote:
On 4 Feb 2014, at 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What did you mean by "reading numbers"?
I imagine the UD as a kind of 'playhead' or 'read head' in a digital
device that scans encoded information. The difference of course
being that there is
As Brent says we have to bear in mind that SR is a model of reality. The
ontological status of its components is another question, as it is with
every theory. Most physicists have assumed that either space-time really
*is* a 4D manifold (Max Tegmark for instance), or it's something else that
is ver
On 4 February 2014 17:29, wrote:
>
> Liz - I was just thinking. If Newton's world predicted a variant of
> blocktime. What is that saying, given Newton's world wasn't correct? Or was
> it based some aspect that is correct?
>
Well it clearly doesn't disprove that space and time form a 4D manifold
On 4 February 2014 17:11, wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
>>> Einstein believed in block time.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't a que
On 4 February 2014 17:06, wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:29:11 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>>>
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit
at the edge of
On 4 February 2014 16:56, wrote:
> Thanks for all that. Very interesting. So what sort of implications would
> block time have for individual lives. Do they happen only onetime while
> their time is being actively blocked in? Or does blocktime exist statically
> as the end-to-end story of the uni
On 2/3/2014 9:41 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
So do you think block time is what is inferred as a reality by each of these space and
time variants?
You mean "implied by"? It doesn't imply anything about which is right, because it applies
equally to all of them, just like we could label every
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:39:42 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/3/2014 8:29 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Liz - I was just thinking. If Newton's world predicted a variant of
> blocktime. What is
> > that saying, given Newton's world wasn't correct? Or was it based some
> aspect that is
On 2/3/2014 8:29 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz - I was just thinking. If Newton's world predicted a variant of blocktime. What is
that saying, given Newton's world wasn't correct? Or was it based some aspect that is
correct?
But is the sense that blocktime comes out of newton's world, compati
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
>> Einstein believed in block time.
>>
>
> It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian mac
On 2/3/2014 7:56 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
I think what I'm realty asking is what is blocktime giving the world? It's giving us a
deeper vision of reality (if true). But if it is objectively true, what purpose or
utility does it serve, if any?
It's a model. It gives us a picture to think a
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:55 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity.
>>> This can be tested experimentally.
>>>
>>
>> The relativity of simultane
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
>> Einstein believed in block time.
>>
>
> It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian mac
On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:29:11 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer >wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
>>> the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a
> real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and
> retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments changed
> their b
On Monday, February 3, 2014 11:11:18 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 4 February 2014 11:48, > wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a
>> great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better
>> idea.
>>
>
> Good, that was the point. A
By the way, I just came across this rather amusing illustration of how SR
leads to block space-time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_argument
[image: Inline images 1]
On 4 February 2014 16:34, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Jesse
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances
> it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving
> family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken metaphorically at times and
> even to
Liz,
Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a
real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and
retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments changed
their belief system! Goodness gracious, can't let that happen...
:-)
Jesse,
That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances
it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving
family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken metaphorically at times and
even to seemingly contradict himself on occasion (eg. on religious bel
Oh dear, you really don't have a clue, do you? OK, that's it. I foolishly
replied to one or two of your posts in the hope you'd magically grown up,
but I can't be bothered with this level of willful ignorance and infantile
nonsense. I'll let you get on with scoring imaginary points, and stick with
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity.
>> This can be tested experimentally.
>>
>
> The relativity of simultaneity is a claim about physics, not metaphysics.
> Specifi
Liz, Liz, Liz!
OK, now you ADMIT that neither Newton or Einstein believed in block time.
Thanks!
Your claim that their theories imply (thanks for using the soft imply
rather than prove) block time is just your erroneous interpretation in an
attempt to lend weight to your own belief.
Your use
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
> Einstein believed in block time.
>
> I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual
> quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
>>> the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
> Einstein believed in block time.
>
It isn't a question of belief. Newtonian and Einsteinian machanics both
imply the existence of a block universe.
I've repeatedly aske
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein
believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual
quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim. Th
Ta very much :)
On 3 February 2014 23:24, LizR wrote:
> I will try to precis Flux at some point - in the meantime, here are a few
> comments ("Flux" was written in 1963, by Moorcock and Barrington Bayley -
> my favourite fantasy and SF writers, respectively).
>
> `Flux' is a sardonic retelling
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
>> the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an
>> implication of relativity, have there been or a
I will try to precis Flux at some point - in the meantime, here are a few
comments ("Flux" was written in 1963, by Moorcock and Barrington Bayley -
my favourite fantasy and SF writers, respectively).
`Flux' is a sardonic retelling of the H. G. Wells classic tale `The Time
Machine'. In a near-futur
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>
> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
> the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an
> implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for
> developing blocktime as i
On 2 February 2014 18:53, LizR wrote:
I will come back on this when I have time
>
Thanks.
> but - to continue my suggestions re SF stories - "Flux" by Michael
> Moorcock addresses the "momentary frog question" rather nicely.
> Philosophically, at least, it is always possible that we ARE just m
On 4 February 2014 11:48, wrote:
>
> Hi Liz, thanks for doing this thread, the history metaphor was also a
> great help. I wasn't clear what block time was and now I've got a better
> idea.
>
Good, that was the point. A lot of people seemed to be attacking it on the
basis of straw man arguments
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:44:08 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
> existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
>
> I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it
> was. But I h
On 4 Feb 2014, at 3:34 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> What did you mean by "reading numbers"?
I imagine the UD as a kind of 'playhead' or 'read head' in a digital device
that scans encoded information. The difference of course being that there is no
output. The lack of output is correlated with
On 03 Feb 2014, at 12:09, Kim Jones wrote:
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often
remarked, the past is a block and the universe keeps adding new
moments and growing. This would be like Barbour's time capsules,
e
re into interpretation and general meta-ness,
refutation comes to rely more on logical inconsistency or similar
meta-refutations. But things can occasionally be "de-meta-ised" as
our knowledge improves. This happened for block universes with SR.
The experimental evidence for space-
On 3 Feb 2014, at 7:00 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> I can imagine a semi-block universe in which, as you've often remarked, the
>> past is a block and the universe keeps adding new moments and growing. This
>> would be like Barbour's time capsules, except just sticking everything into
>>
On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes
into existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like
that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly
what
matter? I thought the
important things were prediction of (preferably unexpected) consequences, and being open
to refutation.
I assume as we get more into interpretation and general meta-ness, refutation comes to
rely more on logical inconsistency or similar meta-refutations. But things can
he important things were prediction
of (preferably unexpected) consequences, and being open to refutation.
I assume as we get more into interpretation and general meta-ness,
refutation comes to rely more on logical inconsistency or similar
meta-refutations. But things can occasionally be "de-meta-is
On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote:
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into existence "all
at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was. But I
haven't managed to find it, and I c
I will come back on this when I have time, but - to continue my suggestions
re SF stories - "Flux" by Michael Moorcock addresses the "momentary frog
question" rather nicely. Philosophically, at least, it is always possible
that we ARE just momentary frogs.
On 3 February 2014 03:19, David Nyman w
On 2 February 2014 03:42, LizR wrote:
To answer the question about the frogs. We imagine we are an "extended
> frog" because of memory; without it we really would be stuck in the present
> moment, a series of individual isolated moments - and completely unable to
> function, of course. (If you ha
Hi Liz,
Great avatar :)
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM, LizR wrote:
> Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
> existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
>
> I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was.
Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into
existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that).
I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it
was. But I haven't managed to find it, and I can't spend all night trawling
the for
On 2 February 2014 04:44, David Nyman wrote:
> On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR wrote:
>
> Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a
>> space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant
>> equations) would see it as static. But of course *we* don't
On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR wrote:
Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a
> space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant
> equations) would see it as static. But of course *we* don't see it like
> that.
>
> This appears to be the source
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:05:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
> list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
> concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change
> ca
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change
can't happen in a block universe" (which are obviously nonsense, or
Einstein e
501 - 556 of 556 matches
Mail list logo
